Through the war that's been raging between the Federation and the Dominion for a year-plus now, the one thing we rarely get a taste of is the pure intensity of how impending death and daily violence actually feels. Sure, Our Heroes have had their dose of life-threatening confrontations, whether it was all-out space battles in "Sacrifice of Angels" or the man-to-man combat of "Rocks and Shoals," but they've never been neck-deep in death for a prolonged period the way the front lines of the war are likely to be.

"The Siege of AR-558"—essentially a DS9 war movie—is exactly about being neck-deep in the ugliness and impending doom of the front lines.

The plot brings the Defiant on a supply delivery run to an outpost with a Dominion communications array that has been seized by the Federation. (Long-term plot patrol asks: Will we ever hear of this array again, or will its relevance vanish like many other "important" victories attained in episodes dealing with the war?) Stationed on the outpost are Starfleet officers who have been trapped on this front line for five months. They were supposed to be rotated out after three, but Starfleet has been spread too thin in the area to get around to it.

In the meantime, these soldiers have been repelling wave after wave of Jem'Hadar assault to reclaim the array. Two-thirds of the Starfleet battalion has been killed. Then a portion of Sisko's crew finds itself trapped—unable to beam up when a Jem'Hadar ship enters the game and the Defiant is forced to break orbit to locate reinforcements.

The plot is a perfect exercise in simplicity. There's Us, and there's Them. Us is the war-torn Starfleet battalion, of which Sisko takes command. Them is a large squadron of Jem'Hadar soldiers who have beamed down to the planet surface and intend to retake AR-558. The confrontation is inevitable. Lots of people at AR-558 will die. Sisko's order: To hold off the enemy—period.

One thing I really like about "The Siege of AR-558" is that it utilizes the strengths of DS9's current themes. This is the sort of Trek story that could only be told on DS9. I honestly couldn't imagine it on any of the other Trek series; it would be utterly foreign. The tone is unlike any typical installment. Like "In the Pale Moonlight," it reveals the dark side of human reaction—how extreme situations can bring out the part of a moral person that he or she would never have hoped existed.

What's even more frightening is that this dark side must surface, because it's required for survival. It truly is Us or Them—kill as efficiently as possible, or be killed.

I was quite interested in the guest characters, who have been stuck on this rock for months with no end to their hell in sight. Behr and Beimler's story presents us a group who have been worn down by attack after attack. The emotional and psychological scars are more than a little evident. These soldiers have become hardened, short-tempered, even nasty. They're all business.

The presentation of these characters works exceptionally well; from step one we can see that this isn't, as Quark so aptly puts it to Nog, "the Starfleet you know." The emotional instability of Vargas (Raymond Cruz) paints a compellingly bleak picture. He's full of bitterness and resentment for being essentially abandoned by Starfleet—left to die on this planet. And the moment with Bashir when Vargas tells his story of the bandage and his slain comrade ("I couldn't stand the guy") shows him in a state of mental unease that borders on a nervous breakdown.

There's also Reese (Patrick Kilpatrick), who seems to be handling the stress better, though he's certainly become combat-hardened. The notion of his wearing Jem'Hadar ketricel white vials around his neck as a way of "keeping score" of his kills provides a nice touch. The implications are unsettling given the Federation moral scheme, but it's a plausibly gritty idea.

The leader of the battalion prior to Sisko taking command is Larkin (Annette Helde), who also shows an edge of impatience. Probably the only of the guest characters who feels like a conventional Starfleet officer rather than a hardened soldier is the engineer, Kellin (Bill Mumy). Kellin and Dax form a good chemistry in working to solve a strategic technical problem; they come to reveal the other side of the situation—the side that can still think about life rather than impending death. Their discussion on Ezri's search for identity continues to build on the character's central struggle, and works surprisingly well in context. (I'm beginning, however, to wonder if making Ezri a counselor was such a good idea; I couldn't help but wonder why she was even on this mission.)

The plot of course documents the battles, injuries, deaths, and the final assault. But the way it all unfolds is engrossing. There's an interesting polemical theme centering around, of all people, Quark, who ends up stuck on the front lines along with the battalion. The circumstances surrounding Quark's presence on this mission strain credulity, but I don't really care; the use of Quark turns out to be one of the story's assets. What Quark has to say is interesting—as he follows his Starfleet nephew around offering his unsolicited point of view.

And contrary to what it initially seems, this is more than a matter of Quark simply being cowardly or petty. The story strongly suggests that Quark is opposed to this war raging on and on ("The Ferengi would've hammered out an agreement"), and objects to the soldier mentality that he sees all around him. I was particularly interested in his view on human vulnerability, where he tells Nog how a human subjected to long-term violence and deprived of food, sleep, and comfort can become as nasty and violent "as the most bloodthirsty Klingon." It seems Quark believes Ferengi wouldn't turn vicious even under such extreme circumstances. Whether that's the truth is debatable, but the point is still interesting, and I like it as a statement that questions the moral basis of the war. Is the human resistance to the Dominion worth all the death it leaves in its wake? The human answer may be obvious, but Quark's Ferengi view brings forth an interesting way to reanalyze it.

I also thought the use of Nog was particularly adept. Nog has that youthful naivete, and here it's manifested through a sense of respectable courage and duty. He doesn't want to hear his uncle's interpretation of things, which only further irritates Quark. He's a Starfleet officer, and he intends to carry out his orders even if it means dying in the process. At the same time, he has a youthful desire to please and earn the respect of Sisko and the other soldiers—a notion that rings true.

In the middle of everything is Captain Sisko, who serves as a bona fide leader for his soldiers. He fights alongside them, he cares about every one of them, he considers the mission's problems and attempts to help solve them ... and, of course, he orders his officers into situations that could get them killed. Because that's also part of it.

Quark's objection to Sisko sending Nog on a scouting mission with Larkin and Reese also seemed like an understandable "civilian" objection; the fact Sisko could so "casually" send Nog—Jake's best friend, no less—to his own death is something that I could see might be hard to understand. Interestingly, when Nog is shot by the Jem'Hadar on this hike and Bashir must amputate his leg (!), Nog was more bothered by the fact he "failed" Sisko than that he was almost killed. Sisko's subsequent scenes with Nog work well, striking some poignant notes.

A great deal of the success of "AR-558" deserves to go to Winrich Kolbe, whose direction is nothing short of virtuoso. The episode is a triumph of mood and atmosphere, which is as crucial to the story as any other element. This was a deeply textured episode that drew me in and captured me on a visceral level. A big part of the experience is in feeling the events unfold as they happen on the screen.

The little details make a huge difference, whether it's Reese's knife, which Nog subtly observes as not being "standard Starfleet issue," to the anticipation and building adrenaline conveyed through the simple gesture of Kellin nervously flipping his phaser sight up and down—which conveys human realism through its simplicity.

Other powerful details: A recording of Vic Fontaine singing "I'll Be Seeing You" plays from the infirmary as the soldiers wait for the rapidly approaching assault. Bashir reloads his phaser, and Vargas notices that he has obviously "done that before." The mine trap Sisko's unit had set for the Jem'Hadar alerts us of the imminent approach, as a series of bombs explode just over the rocks. The Jem'Hadar screams gradually become audible as they charge in for the kill. All of it borders on the surreal, with consequences that are all too real.

When the attack finally arrives, lots of people die, but for once, the deaths feel more like people than statistics. We can see elements of sacrifice, heroism, futility, and desperation. And the simple fact that there are so many Jem'Hadar ensures the chances are exactly zero that we'll kill all of Them before they can kill plenty of Us.

With the subtle but striking visual and spoken nuances, I could understand and feel how this group faced an intense situation. The message voiced by Sisko in the show's closing scene is that those who die are more than just names—a fact that shouldn't be forgotten. That may be a fairly obvious statement, but an episode like "The Siege of AR-558" helps get us in better touch with the feelings behind the words, rather than leaving us in the position to take the words at face value.

Next week: Kira confronts a Bajoran cult affiliated with her worst enemy.

Given everything we've heard over the last five years about troops being
sent and re-sent to Iraq when their tours of duty should have been up long
ago, that aspect of this episode in particular really made me wince.
Frighteningly prescient.

Oh PLEASE! While I agree that the episode as a whole was a very good outing
to show the bad side of war (-as if there was such a thing as the good side
of it!), the guest "soldiers" really annoyed me.

I'm certainly not breaking this down to an argument about Roddenberry-ism,
but NEEDED we to see this bunch of action figure caricatures to see, that
war isn't good for mental health. Ok, war is dirty, war is terrible, but I
mean, come on - the soldier sharpening his knife? The soldier almost
shooting a Doctor for trying to change his bandage?

Don't get me wrong - there were a LOT of things in this episode that I
liked (or rather: that moved me). I was particularly moved by the musical
score - really terrific (although a tad on the melodramatic side, but I
like that!)!
But it might be that my role is similar to that of Quarks - I'm simply not
militaristic enough to emphasize with some of the attitudes shown. Bloody
civilian, eh?

I liked this one a lot- and I liked Quark's role particularly. I must agree
with Jakob above that I sympathized far more with his position than
Sisko's. His statement 'this is not the Starfleet you know' was a telling
wink to how far the war had pushed the show out of the Trek umbrella.
However even if I didn't agree with the position, I could sympathize with
it, and thought this a great ep.

Although the character inter-play was nice, the basically non-sensical
nature of the plot weakened the story fatally.

If the comms array was so crucial, why didn't the Dominion simply nuke it
from orbit? Why don't they have any Armoured Fighting Vehicles?
Artillery? Why didn't the holograms have phasers? Where was all the body
armour? The ubiquitous force fields and dampening fields? And so on. The
ray guns were always going to make it hokey but it was made even worse by
the Treknobabble anti-personel mines that should have killed everyone long
ago. It really needed to have been visualised very differently to make it
work.

1 - It's generally not a very smart idea to destroy something you value
greatly.
2 - In ST, the vast majority of warfare is conducted via space combat.
Hence there isn't much focus on the land-based stuff anymore.
3 - See #2.
4 - Why WOULD they have phasers? It's not like they could have done any
damage with them.
5 - See #2.
6 - yet again, see #2.
7 - "Ray guns"? I take it by being 'hokey', you mean being Star Trek,
right?
8 - Um, why? (The mines thing, that is)

This and paper moon are two of my favorite episodes of this show. Nog
really became one of my favorite characters. He moved me to tears on three
ocassions. This one, paper moon and during the speech he gave Sisko about
why he wanted to be in Starfleet back when no one believed he was serious
about it (sorry, the name of that episode is escaping me at the moment).
Nog as a character was wonderfully written and acted.

I love trek in general, but I really do think DS9 was leaps and bounds
ahead of all the other incarnations in terms of over all quality.

It's certainly got more of a feel of quality to it than Voyager at this
point in the trek time continuum! Actually that's not entirely fair, this
runs in parallel with series 5 which was a huge improvement over 4.

To be honest I usually read Lynch's reviews of DS9 (difficult as they are
to find these days). I loved this episode though and so after his usual
whining and nitpicking I needed a more optimistic review to justify
enjoying it ;)

It does seem prescient to the never-ending battles *still* raging on in the
middle east today (2 years after the point was made here). Sadly history
does repeat itself and in 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years I bet the same will be
said for whatever is going on then.. if people are still going back
watching this stuff.

This episode reminded me that Rodenberry was probably spinning in his grave
through much of DS9 with its conflicts, non-perfection and the point about
humans still basically becoming animals under the pressures of war. But it
was the correct decision as DS9 was a joy to watch, compared to the "new
TOS" style of Voyager (which is still good, just not great).

There was, as mentioned, a very slight melodrama to the music that in part
made me think "oh please, we're really milking the war movie clone now" but
in the end I appreciated it.

I haven't seen the rest of DS9 yet... Ezri needs a personality beyond
"being a useless counsellor and recalling previous hosts as if it's news"
real soon now before it's too late, and I really hope Nog's leg loss is
remembered or else it will seem like a wasted point. I'll be disappointed
if he turns up in the next episode running around with a replacement that,
gee, is exactly like the real thing!

Anyway, all in all, great stuff. On a 10-scale I'd give it about a 9.5

Ok, trying to compare the war in Iraq to DS9 works on some levels, but not
all. In full disclosure I have served four touors there, and am getting
ready for a fifth.
I have been in some very isolated places (like AR-558) and maybe it's me,
but these people were....soft. Quark was right. Supposed to be out in 90
days? Crying about it? Boo hoo. I did two years straight in Iraq...24
months...and saw people in places that were there for 15 months, and lost a
LOT of friends...they did their job and kept morale up. To me the angst was
obviously written by someone who had no idea what it was like to serve.

Having said all that, I love this episode. It is in other ways very real.
These people are DIRTY...Trek doesn't like to show their people dirty. I
liked that. I gasped when the mines were revealed, I liked that moment a
lot. I will say, carrying the white around the neck...yawn. Cliche. AND
there is NO WAY a Soldier with his experience would wear them on a patrol
where silence is key. Anything nonessential goes, especially if it can make
noise.

I agree with Carbetarian, Nog is one of my favorite characters, and the
three episodes cited are a huge reason. Nog was fun, serious, dedicated and
three dimensional.

I disagree with that last point - it's one of the most insightful comments
I've seen on the site.

You're right, like probably a lot of war dramatization it'll have likely
been written by someone who lacks that actual experience. Whether it's the
best they could have done without experience I wouldn't know... perhaps
being there is the only way to truly understand.

Judging from Trek's history with some of its science accuracy it does seem
pretty likely it was put together with enough thought and research to keep
most people happy, yet lacks enough that it grates on those very close to
the subject matter. The other big Trek reviewer was a biologist I believe
and the Fun With DNA always knocked several points off the episodes he
reviewed.

This episode I think hammers home just how insidious this series is. Again,
if we take it in 20th-century terms, it works. It's a war movie as you say,
Jammer; war sucks; it tends to bring out the worst in us if not drive us
completely insane; and it seems necessary to our survival. On those terms,
this episode is a genre of film and TV that has been done to death and far
better in dealing with real wars and battles, can i count the ways? Need
I?

The assertion here seems to be that the survival of humanity's evolved
sensibilities have depended for a century on un-challenged creature
comforts (as Quark calls them). Uh huh. So never mind that to be in
Starfleet in the first place, one must be some sort of scientist (even if
one is a tactical officer, keen interest in scientific inquiry is a must).
Somehow, Bruce-Willis-man had a career as a scientist before sharpening his
blade, or collecting bottles of White (vomit-inducing cliché). I think the
idea of showing people, star trek people, under the extreme stresses of
front-line war is, yes, prescient and potentially moving, but there's no
need to throw the pessimism blanket over the whole thing. It just becomes
one big sad, depressing exercise.

it seems the writers are pushing for controversy for its own sake. The
Ferengi are the voice of Roddenberrian humanism (even though their
society's values directly contradict them, so this is a deception) and the
humans have reverted to the 1970s.

Execution-wise it's okay. It pushes beyond the point of melodrama too often
for my tastes, but the grittiness is certainly a welcome veneer. Ezri is
damned annoying; I hate that they sabotaged the welcomed death of Jadzia by
bringing her back in an even more irritating form. I guess Kira was not
enough woman to meet the casting quota. Sisko is always so damned
irritating when he's under emotional stress. It's like watching a
trainwreck and not in a good way.

I wish someone would remind someone else that Starfleet officers are not
soldiers, they fight when they absolutely must but it's the last thing they
desire. Those are values that needn't disappear in wartime. Neither the
Soviets nor the Chinese nor the European crusaders nor the capitalist
american soldiers of our wars lost their respective societies' values under
the stress of combat; why should the federation be any different? Ah yes,
because the writers like to use childish pessimistic arrogance to sell
their product.

Elliot states: Neither the Soviets nor the Chinese nor the European
crusaders nor the capitalist american soldiers of our wars lost their
respective societies' values under the stress of combat;

Sorry Elliott, but you're provably wrong. The Allied soldiers in Normandy
had the bad habit of shooting surrendering Germans. And even if they had a
reason to do so, there is still black pages in the US Army's history like
My Lai.

History tells us that people do horrible things in the stress of combat,
regardless of how justified it might have appeared to them at the time.
AR-558 is spot on in its portrayal of this process.

And Nick, you could have looked up who directed this episode before you
made your cheap shot about not knowing what it is to serve.

I didn't say people should lose the capacity to do horrible things under
direst--that's not the point. What I said was those people, in spite of
being in war zones did not lose the core values of their respective
societies--communists were, to whatever extent they ever were, still
communists whether or not they were in combat, etc.

I say the same should apply to the Federation; show people in difficult and
painful and life-changing situations if you wish, but don't abandon the
things which make them unique in the literary universe; let them still be
Starfleet humans of the 24th century who believe in a certain ideal. The
characters in the episode were indistinguishable from modern American
humans and even in that context were a group of clichés. Yet, the episode
has the audacity to include the Quark commentary as if to lay claim to some
sort of moral backhand at the values which the episode (and this show) are
so eager to dismiss and disprove.

Just rewatechedsthis episode on Netflix. It's a travesty that episodes like
these and the Dominion War story arch of DS9 never made in into main-stream
popularity. It's such a great show and storyline.

Quark's presence was rather contrived and his role as the non-human
observer of human nature was a bit pat, but it was effective nonethelesss.
His fierce determination to protect his nephew was one of Quark's finest
character moments of the series. It's a shame we didn't get to see more of
this side of Quark.

Jammer, your long term plot patrol is a bit off, you wondered if we'd ever
hear about the communications array ever again or would it be forgotten
like so many other "important victories"...well this episode takes place in
the Chin'toka System, the system the Federation took from the Dominion in
the previous season finale "Tears of the Prophets", so already the writers
haven't forgotten about the other victories, so this would be a bad example
to use. Later this season in "The Changing Face of Evil" the Federation
loses this system to the Dominion with the help of the Breen.

Quark was a little annoying at times but a few of his little speeches where
great. Like the line about taking humans away from paradise and them
turning into Klingons was great. Rang true when they turned the mines
against the Jem'Hader.
Certainly concur with Nemesis4909 as to how Quark was played in this
episode.

Some of the characters were a bit too obvious but, as Jammer says, it tells
a simple story effectively. Very good.

This episode galvanizes my love/hate relationship with Deep Space Nine. My
love of the program is in its overall quality of writing, directing,
production values and acting. With those I've had no problem with this
series. My issue has always been with its undercutting tone towards Gene
Roddenberry's vision of the future. In the Original Star Trek, Kirk would
admit that his species has had a savage past and still had the capacity for
savagery--but they also had the capacity for improvement. On TNG, Picard
said they've moved past our bloody past and are working to better
themselves still. (And for the record: he nor anybody from the
Enterprise-D claimed humanity was "perfect")

Now we come to DS9 and this episode in particular: Quark's speech to Nog
about human nature being benevolent as long as their technologies and
social structure are intact now reminds me now of Heath Ledger's Joker in
"The Dark Knight". Specifically, I'm reminded of Joker in the
interrogation room with Batman and him saying: "When the chips are down,
these so-called, civilized people will eat each other. You'll see."

But while "The Dark Knight" had the scene with the two ferries not blowing
each other up and proving The Joker wrong; Deep Space Nine never offered
any similar counterpoint to Quark's claim. Sadly, there was ultimately
only one point of view on Deep Space Nine that they ran with for 7 seasons:
the whoredom of the human soul is adamantine and they'll never be
improvement--ever.

I've read many authors that have a dim view of humanity, like Aldous Huxley
(and George Orwell). I'm not saying that Gene Roddenberry's views are
necessarily true to life, but they formed the nerve center of what Star
Trek was: a Kennedy-esque new frontier humanistic space opera filled with
optimism that was infectious and at times inspiring. It was the nucleus of
thoughtful escapist entertainment.

Then came Deep Space Nine's post-modern take on Trek. It was basically:
"Hey, Santa Claus isn't real! Give me my Emmy!" Well that never
happened--and fans and other viewers left by the droves. I don't think it
was the dark, grittiness that hurt the show's popularity ultimately. It
was it's iconoclasm with nothing to replace the fallen icon. Ever wonder
why Joss Whedon's 13-episode series "Firefly" got it's own theatrical
motion picture and DS9 (which ran 7 YEARS) didn't?

As I said, Deep Space Nine was a fine show, but I have yet to hear anyone
say how it inspired them in real life the way TOS and TNG has for many
people. Many, people like myself simply were put off with Ira Steven Behr
pissing in Gene Roddenberry's pool, so to speak.

Hey, remember the first two seasons of TNG? I do. They were when Rodenberry
was in control. They sucked. Not entirely due to him. But a lot due to him.
And even later in the TNG his rules about no in crew conflict and the
supposed enlightenment of humans meaning they didn't care about such stuff
as death of their close ones and such stuff strangled effective tv drama
in its crib many a time.

Deep Space Nine isn't shitting in anyone's pool. It suggests that sometimes
with Utopia comes hidden compromises when Utopia is threatened. And not so
hidden compromises.

And people didn't leave because of DS9s different take. They left because
there was way more competition. When TNG launched, there was nothing like
it on television. Such a high profile sci-fi show hadn't been seen since
the 60s. By the time DS9 and especially Voyager came out there were tons of
imitators and new sci-fi to follow.

And Joss Whedon's "Firefly" got a movie because it was cancelled. Its story
had not been completely told. Hell, its story had barely been told. Deep
Space Nine had a complete beginning, middle and end. More than can be said
for a lot of tv shows, even the vaunted TNG.

I guess the difference between you and me is I don't care if a TV show is
an icon. I just care if its a good story. And DS9 meets that mark.

Here's my big problem with this and other similar episodes across the Trek
incarnations - the script may be excellent but it's filled with new
characters I don't care about and will never see again. I enjoy a good
guest character as much as the next guy, but when they bring in an entire
team of them to carry most of the emotional weight of the episode, it just
doesn't work.

"(I'm beginning, however, to wonder if making Ezri a counselor was such a
good idea; I couldn't help but wonder why she was even on this mission.)"

"The emotional instability of Vargas (Raymond Cruz) paints a compellingly
bleak picture. He's full of bitterness and resentment for being essentially
abandoned by Starfleet—left to die on this planet. And the moment with
Bashir when Vargas tells his story of the bandage and his slain comrade ("I
couldn't stand the guy") shows him in a state of mental unease that borders
on a nervous breakdown."

Maybe it's just me, but it sounds like a good place for a counselor...
perhaps one tasked with a psychiatric evaluation of the garrison...
although perhaps an Ezri/Vargas scene might've justified that better than I
can.

The best scene of this episode is when Sisko decides to stay behind and
assume command of these desperate officers. The expression of relief when
the lieutenant says, "You heard the captain. Sir, what are your orders?"
was very realistic. I agree with Rick Berman who said that the real life
military consultants for the show said that Captain Sisko was the most
realistic portrayal of a captain from all the Star Trek Captains.

This episode is way overhyped on here. It is pretty average. I agree with
John Pate above, the logic of the entire situation is nonsensical. If the
array was as important as suggested and the Feds breaking into it so bad
the Dominion would have destroyed it from orbit. Whilst the lack of any
heavy weapons is silly. Plus the episode was a bit hokey and unconvincing I
thought. The guest actors were all stereotypes and obviously none of the
major characters would be hurt (Nog doesn't count). The whole thing just
ends up being rather redundant. not bad by any means, just solid for me -
6/10.

Ok perhaps saying Nog doesn't count is a bit harsh but he has no real
impact on the show's events. I would say that his injury has almost no
repercussions - it gets some treatment in one episode and physically he's
probably better off with the artificial leg. So basically after that
episode he's reset to where he was.

Regarding the budget - other shows of around the same time like Space:
Above & Beyond had far more believable external battles. B5 also
typically felt fresh whilst Trek constantly reused variants of the 'planet
hell' set ad infinitum. Obviously today series like BSG and Game of Thrones
completely leave Trek for dust but given tech advancement they're not
really a fair comparison.

Regarding the basic workings of the situation however I think they could
have engineered the plot to make more sense if they'd have tried - and it
isn't hard to synthesize incoming artillery rounds. The existence of those
houdini mines themselves shows how technology would have maed the kind of
point blank hand to hand combat shown in the episode irrelevent. In fact in
Trel they effectively fight using WW1 tactics except without even machine
guns! Let's face it 20th century weaponry is more effective than the hand
phasers they use in terms of fire-rate and ease of use/accuracy.

I agree that in war it would be difficult to maintain the ideals of
Roddenberry, and one would hope that once relieved of duty they would
return to that oft-vaunted enlightened human state.

Still, I've said it before, even in the height of Roddenberry there were
still some nasty humans and nasty human behaviour about... I think that
even Roddenberry himself was not so fundamentalist about this issue as some
commenters.

As for this episode itself, I did find some of the "grunts" a bit
exaggerated, but of course I'm not a war veteran.

I did think it was necessary though to show that it's not all bloodless
space battles in war, and that space geopolitics do have their real life
consequences.

When we talk about "the ideals of Roddenberry," let's not forget that his
vision of the future included space pimp Harry Mudd and Starfleet war
criminal Capt. Tracey. Later, he decided that "humanism" meant children
would not grieve for dead parents and that Riker smiling would be
unprofessional.

A questionable decision by Sisko not to beam out and the hero aura on main
crew members was pretty strong, but I've always enjoyed a good old
fashioned hold out. The last 10 mins have some of the best non-ship battles
of the series.

I agree this episode is overrated: it's not bad, but it is terribly
clichéd. They didn't do a lot that hasn't been done much better in
countless films and books. Quark's presence there was particularly
contrived. The tactical and strategic plausibility of the whole situation
was laughable.

On the plus side: the Quark scenes were strong, Ezri and her scenes with
that engineer were moving (he was a nicely-developed character and seemed
much more believably Starfleet than Rambo-man), and I thought the battle
scene at the end was executed much better than the usual phaser battles (I
wish Eddington's final fight was more like this!)

I thought "Nor the Battle To the Strong" was a much better look at this
same general theme. Although I did appreciate some of the subtle homages
to "Zulu" in this episode, while "Nor the Battle" is more "Red Badge of
Courage."

“As I said, Deep Space Nine was a fine show, but I have yet to hear
anyone say how it inspired them in real life the way TOS and TNG has for
many people.”

This is one of the most depressing hours of Star Trek ever. And no, I
don’t think it’s needed. Unlike many episodes of TOS and TNG, we can
watch this same story a hundred other places. We already know this.

Once upon a time in TOS, there was an episode called “Errand of Mercy”
that told an incredible tale, especially for that era, of pacifism and
non-belligerence. An episode that made you think, made you wonder, and made
you consider other possibilities.

Thinking about "Roddenberrism", I do love that aspect of Trek and it's
pretty rare in... anything (nowadays it seems to take dipping into shows
for little girls to find a bit of well-written positivity and optimism, and
even then it doesn't involve humans!) and thoroughly value TNG for how well
it presented it. It's also what I wanted to see Voyager and Enterprise
return to.

DS9 was just different. It was without a doubt very "un-Roddenberry" but I
think I just switched my brain into a different mode. I do still like
realism and grittiness sometimes, especially when it's told well, and most
of the time in DS9 I felt it was told brilliantly.

Ideally it should've been something completely separate and not Star Trek,
but then it wouldn't have the benefit of all its history setting a
foundation for "this is why you should care about these people" (this is a
part of where I'm struggling with B5).

=====

Grumpy: "Ironic that Cloudane would compare this episode with the quality
of contemporaneous Voyager. The same week this aired, Jammer doled out
another 4 stars for "Timeless.""

Heh.... well, both series have their high points and their stinkers. I did
feel that DS9 had better storytelling in the long run, though.

@Cloudane; well, that's the point isn't it? DS9 happily gobbled up the Trek
legacy's goodwill and nostalgia without the slightest reverence for what
that legacy meant. It is a corruption of Roddenberry's fictional world.

Now, one may certainly believe that Roddenberry's vision was flawed,
naïve, misguided or Utopian to begin with, and thus regard a corruption as
an improvement, but it is unfair to have it both ways, idolising both the
original and the mutated version.

Elliott, although I usually agree with you in your criticism against the
complete departure of DS9 from the Trek canon, I do not fully understand
how should the officers have fought this battle in a way that would please
you.

Unless you are mentioning specifically the one-lines written for the
additional soldiers featured on screen, once they in fact have talked like
current soldiers having proud for destroying the enemy. If this is the
point you criticize as being 20th century extrapolated to 24th, then I
agree once more.

Well frankly, they shouldn't be very good at it. Starfleet is portrayed as
intelligent, witty, curious, open-minded and maybe a tad over-confident. I
would not mind if DS9 chose to exploit those qualities in a dark way,
making the Federation look weak and unable to defend itself against an
intractable foe (though, as others have pointed out, the Dominion is so
over-written as to meet fantasy-level super-powered superiority). Instead,
the writers decide that Starfleet is something else, a real military made
up of hardened soldiers who relish bloodsport on the battlefield. I think
it would have been more honest to show the Starfleet officers totally
broken by their plight--scared, hopeless and ineffectual, surviving in this
place by the flimsiest of technical explanations (like those magical
mines). THAT would have been tragic and a demonstrated the potential that a
real "dark" Trek could have been. It would have offered a fresh
perspective on the idealism of TNG-era Trek without corrupting and mocking
that philosophy.

As for the battle sequence itself, the only way to portray it properly and
still have the Federation win would involve some sort of Deus es
Machina--those mines or a cave-in (like in the similar "Nor the Battle to
the Strong." That episode had its own problems, but at least the way Jake
behaved was believable.

@Elliott I don't see why Starfleet having "a real military made up of
hardened soldiers (...)" departures from the original Starfleet portrayed
before. Or corrupts or mock the original philosophy. I think this is a bit
too much. From where did you concluded that it did not have a real
military? It doesn't make sense with all the wars its has fought in
previous Trek. It is not because hardened soldiers were not in explorer
missions such as the Enterprise's, that they did not exist, since
Federation and Starfleet have been facing wars for a long time at this
point. Having hardened soldiers is not being far from the original Trek per
se.

However, I totally agree with the continuation of your sentence: "(...) who
relish bloodsport on the battlefield". This is what I meant before: the
part that is too much for me as well is the portrayal of the soldiers as
brute, blood-thirsty, 20th century mariners. This was totally off and, once
again, annoying. It seemed like Starfleet teaches one type of philosophy
for superior officers and another 20th century-ish to the battlefield
soldiers. And this corrupts and mocks the original philosophy.

Said that, I also agree that the magical mines were a poor choice, actually
pathetic. And I totally think that Dominion over-written as having silly
supwer-powers. Besides, it is also written in a poor one-dimensional way
(the Borg were as well in the first appearances of TNG, but it was more
reasonable as they were following a one-dimension one-line of program: to
assimilate. Even though, they later gained more dimensions as well).

The point is that human nature is human nature. That is kind of what Quark
was saying. It doesn't matter hwta philosophy is taught in the academy.
In real life situation and especially in their prolonged combat without
reserves or break, human nature will assert itself.

That assertion is itself a philosophy, a cynical philosophy and one to
which Trek diametrically opposed itself. As I said, rather than doing the
responsible and respectful thing within the franchise and disagreeing with
the philosophy on its own merits and faults, DS9 either ignored, parodied
or circumvented the argument.

Cynicism was popular in the 90s and continues to be so today, though
thankfully idealism seems to be resurfacing.

Although I still don't see why having hard soldiers disrespects the
francise, I do see how they being blood-thirsty does. And sorry, this is
not in everybody's definition of human nature.

Besides, for god sake. Despite ES realizing it or not, his/her
interpretation of human nature is precisely one of the most debated
philosophies in the modern political thinking (i.e 17h to 19th centuries).
One that pretty much didn't exist before the so called contractualists and
one that have been criticized since then. Please, let's not try to
naturalize what is one point of viewing - and certainly not the one Trek
ever had before or after this episode.

Btw it reminds me of one of the greatest debates between the
contractualists. After Hobbes brought to light the most famous and powerful
instalment of ES's viewing about the human nature, the also contractualist
Rousseau (who had not exactly a super idealistic interpretation of human
nature himself, contrarily to what people usually think) gave him back
this: he suggested that Hobbes' idea of human nature was simply
naturalizing what was the English reality of his century. That was the
reception of the idea of human nature that ES thinks as natural, universal
and not a philosophy. Rousseau is right. We keep naturalizing our mistakes
sort of to justify as species all the sort of horrible things we still do.
And in the end, mine criticismo (and also Elliott's as far as I've read) is
similar: that DS9 is just extrapolating 20th reality to the future as
Hobbes did with his state of nature. But sorry, I digress.

Interesting debate you’re having. If I’m allowed to make a few
comments, it seems to me that what Elliott is saying is that the
interesting take on ”The Siege of AR-558” would have been to have shown
a number of Federation Gandhis, so to speak, having to fight a war they
absolutely did not want to have to fight.

I agree that such an approach, not just in this episode, but on DS9 as a
whole, would have been far more interesting than what we were given by the
producers and the writers. But there is much more to it:

@Ric: ”From where did you conclude that [Starfleet] did not have a real
military? It doesn't make sense with all the wars it has fought in previous
Trek.”

There can be no doubt that the ”Enterprise”, as the Federation
flagship, is consistently described in TNG as a vessel of exploration.
”Starfleet” is another word for NASA/ESA, and ”officers” is another
word for astronauts, i.e., scientists. Rather tellingly, not only the
”Enterprise”, but also other vessels of other classes carry the
scientists’ families aboard. And while some vessels are more specialized
research vessels and others perform also diplomatic duties, nobody will
ever convince me that the vessels we see in TNG are military vessels.

Federation vessels pack phasers and torpedoes because there are always
asteroids and comets that need to be diverted or blown to pieces out there;
there’s always a world you can help by drilling magma vents (or whatever)
in their planet’s crust, or by altering the decaying orbit of one of
their moons, and so on; and finally ― note that: finally ― because
there are indeed a few space pirates out there. But I would argue that the
Federation ships having phasers and torpedoes in TNG is as much for
civilian uses than it is for self-defense: it does not make them military
vessels. Nor does the military rank system Starfleet uses.

We shouldn’t forget that TOS' end product was, in many ways, also a
product of its day. Kirk’s crew doesn’t behave the way any real crew
would actually behave today – whether aboard an aircraft carrier or the
NASA space shuttle ―, not to mention in the future. They act like a 1960s
television crew would.

So TNG inherited some things from TOS it couldn’t easily have ignored.
But in TNG we finally see a fully developed Federation/Starfleet credo of
humanism and pacifism, non-interventionism, etc. It was already very much
present in TOS, but in TNG, we finally see crews also behaving in a mostly
convincing attempt at future behaviour and psychology patterns:

@ES: ” The point is that human nature is human nature…”
@Ric: ”...interpretation of human nature is precisely one of the most
debated philosophies…”

Forget about philosophy for a moment, and just look at history: look at
where we were in behavourial terms in 1314, 1664, and where we are today in
2014 ― and try to extrapolate to 2364.

As I’ve written elsewhere, look at how we treated criminals 350 years
ago. Look at what were common sights in Europe: burning people alive,
dragging them after a horse in the city streets until the horse was just
pulling a bloody lump of flesh; impaling them alive; pulling them apart
with horses while still alive, or breaking them up after they were
executed, and then exposing their body parts in major city crossroads ―
bridges, city gates, etc. Yes, there was a time ― until the mid 18th
century ― when a child would have passed decaying corpses in the streets
of Europe and seen barbaric executions as a matter of fact.

Much the same way, look at what was the reality in Charles’ Dickens day
― and look at how far we’ve come in little over a hundred years. Look
at the changes in society regarding the way we treat the poor, the sick,
the orphaned ― or issues such as race, gender, religion or sexuality. No
one can deny that we have witnessed huge changes in mentality the past 350
years ― or even in the last century.

Can human nature be changed as well, after enough change to the mentality?
That is to say, can human nature be subjugated, much like... the Vulcans
control their nature? (What are the Vulcans in Star Trek, if not a
symbol?)

In the late 24th century, if the evolution we’ve witnessed these last
three hundred and fifty years continues, we’ll all be hugging trees and
playing with teddy bears and little ponies. That’s the whole point of
Star Trek, and especially TNG; Roddenberry’s TNG-Federation is, in a way,
John Lennon’s ”Imagine” come true. Rather tellingly, our present-day
astronauts are basically already hugging the proverbial cosmic trees and
playing with cosmic teddy bears and little ponies: they’re increasingly
nerdy scientists, and less and less military men. All the seeds to
Roddenberry’s Federation are actually here, on the Earth, today.

Today we more and more often see people giving up perfectly good ― and
well-paid ― ”respectable” jobs to embark on quests of
”self-realization”, usually involving some sort of artistic expression
or spiritual journey. Money, for an ever-increasing part of the population
in the most advanced countries in the world, isn’t really important
anymore. Improving oneself is. The seeds of TNG are already here: it’s
already happening.

If the trend continues, in the 24th century, astronauts will be nerdy
scientists with some very big ships, and some very powerful sources of
energy available, perhaps as weapons also ― but still they will be
essentially men of science, not military men. And their society will
probably be as as far from ours in terms of ethical behaviour as we are
from people who lived three hundred and fifty years ago.

That’s the main point of TOS and TNG, and should have been the main point
of all Star Trek since. In that respect, TOS and TNG were by far the most
realistic sci-fi series ever: they were futuristic in that they attempted
to depict a somewhat foreseeable future, not solely in terms of kewl
gadgets, but also in terms of mentality changes.

In a real war situation, I doubt that the Federation in the TNG/DS9/VOY era
would ever even land troops on a hostile planet: everything would be taken
care of from orbit, by those magnificent scientists in their flying
machines. In a way, we are also already seeing this today: look at the
growing reluctance the Western militaries show in deploying ground combat
troops anywhere in the world. What we "civilized" people want is satellite
and electronic warfare, drones and remotely controlled machines. We are
already witnessing all this today. We don’t want blood on our hands ―
not literally, anyway.

I don’t believe the Federation of Picard’s and Sisko’s day would use
anything other than robotic troops on the ground on hostile worlds. As
such, ”The Siege of AR-558” is an epic fail: it’s a monumental
failure to understand the social mechanics and the very underlying
mentality that pervades the Federation and its citizens in the 2360s and
2370s as told in TNG.

But the ethical battles of men like Picard in a devastating war of survival
would still have made good television, if the producers of DS9 insisted on
the Dominion War. It would be interesting, as Elliott has pointed out, to
see how these Federation humanists ― those magnificent scientists in
their flying machines ― would fight a war they would abhorr having to
fight. How would a highly ethical Picard-like character face the realities
of the Dominion War? Unfortunately, I don’t know: that story was never
told.

And how would primitive grunts fight ”The Siege of AR-558”? I honestly
don’t care: it would never happen. Leave that to the robots. ”But we
don’t know that the Federation has a droid army”, you say? My point
exactly: the Federation has no army. And they would never send a bunch of
24th century humanists to the slaughter.

But if Starfleet could have built around a hundred starships between Wolf
359 in 2367 [39 vessels destroyed] and the battle of the Tyra system in
2374 [112 ships present], I'm betting they could have built many hundreds
if not thousands of battle droids, thus avoiding having to put grunts in
situations like this one. This episode is, really, nothing but a bad
dream.

I don't see it as philosophical. Look at how the US reacted to 9/11. All
they wanted was blood and vengeance. Any improvement humanity thought it
made within itself went right out the window. This happens on a regular
enough basis that it is no longer philosophy.

^^^^
Sorry, ES, but that's not good enough. Human nature is only human nature to
a certain point; we can control our instincs, and that's exactly why we
have Vulcans in Star Trek. And in the case at hand, the debate is moot, and
only possible due to extremely lazy writing. The Federation after 2371
would have built some robotic troops to deploy on places like AR-558, and
this discussion would never arise. Only idiot admirals and idiot writers
would dream of deploying human grunts against the Jem'Hadar. This is just
lazy writing. As I said above, the whole episode's a bad dream.

The Federation isn't the US. The US has never stopped being a violent,
Colonialist nation, which has covertly or overtly invaded/couped almost a
hundred countries in the last hundred years, with a 5 billion dollar
designed coup going on right now in Ukraine and Honduras.

The Federation's pushed past this, otherwise it wouldnt be the Federation.

@ES your position is "I don't think my own philosophic view about the human
nature is only a philosophic view, is the ontological truth!". Or "humans
will always be humans - in the way I think they will - and this is not a
philosophy, it is the truth!". So be it. I will not keep debating like
this. It is pointless, you will keep just repeating that humans will always
be humans, as if this says something.

@Andy's Friend
There is no good reason to assert that Starfleet didn't have any ground
soldiers for emergency defense in the past. It is not because we have been
watching an explorer ship like Enterprise that having any small number of
soldiers would a corruption of the Federation philosophy. This is bad
logic: not seeing soldiers in na explorer ship is the obvious right? I
mean, even in a scientific ship today you will usually not find military
soldiers. Likewise, the fact that the mission of Starfleet is mostly one of
exploration and science would not mean per se that the Federation wouldn't
need soldiers for defense.

On the contrary, it is quite reasonable that after fighting so many wars,
begining with the one against the Klingons in the past, Federation or
Starflleet had some soldiers for defense. Example: what if a Federation
planet is invaded? I know, you will reply that robots would make more
sense. I will come back this in a minute. Anyway, not having the robots as
we know they didn't, in your interpretation every battle in their wars were
fought by astronauts, to stick to your comparison with the current NASA? It
does not make sense. Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that Starfleet
has any major military objectives, nor that it would be normal to have
normal warfare within their philosophy (the first warship was the Defiant,
btw). I am just stating that having a few soldiers for defense pourpose is
not inherently absurd with their philosophy.

A quick pause: btw, you have mentioned Ghandi. Despite how much I admire
Ghandi, and I do, I really think that at this point, people should have
knwon better about political movements they think were pacific like
Ghandi's and Mandela's, but they were not. That said, I totally agree that
the canonical philosophy of Federation was pacifist, idealistic, for
scientific exploration. Not this genocide-friendly portrayed in the last
seasons of DS9.

Lastly, the robots you have mentioned. It is really amusing how you think
having soldiers is nonsense for a Starfleet in war for centuries, but you
don't think having robots is absurd in a Starfleet where no robot has ever
been seen. Think about it. Do you see any robots in Trek's Starfleet or
Federation, besides Data who was the first cyborg? I mean, not only
soldier-robots, do you see any? But much more important than that, do you
really think that having robots in the future battlefields (or drones
today) would really solve the "blood-thirsty" moral issue Elliott and I
were talking about? Of course it would not. It would only shift its
location. It does not matter if they were human soldiers or robot soldiers
in the ground this episode, but the fact that they were employed in a
ground battle and, for me, how they were portrayed. It could have been
robots beeing commanded in a brute way and the same problem would arise. As
in current real life, it does not matter, morally speaking, whether we
invade Iraq with human soldiers or drones, but the invasions itself and,
after taht, what the human soldiers or the drones will do there.

@Corey You brought a fair logical point. The Federation is defined as being
different from what ES believes is the only way possible for humanity to
be, no matter if we even believe it is possible to.

You know, it's quite frustrating that so many Trek fans (rightfully)
criticise episodes like "Genesis" and "Threshold" for totally botching
biological evolution and making it seem silly, but are essentially
Creationists when it comes to psychological evolution, maintaining that the
human species is a fixed, unchanging and created form, and that suggesting
otherwise is somehow blasphemous.

Look, Star Trek is a period piece. If a film-maker depicted the Battle of
Hastings or 1812 or the siege of Pompeii with characters which were clearly
lifted from the film-maker's contemporary life, should we not criticise the
historical inaccuracy? Would we not find his casting and characterisation
lazy and uncreative? Would not the illusion be broken by attitudes and
speech which clearly didn't belong the the time period being depicted? The
same is true for speculative fiction as for historical fiction; these
characters and settings are nearly 400 years in the future and the
conventions by which we judge our contemporary morality, military policy
and general disposition as a species don't suit this future, especially
when it had already been established precisely how (speculatively of
course) those things had changed.

@Ric: Thank you very much for your reply. Your comments deserve further
comments, I think. So here we go:

1 ―― You mention the Federation “fighting so many wars, begining with
the one against the Klingons in the past”:

You’re right, of course. But I think it’s important to differentiate
between what we see in TOS, and what we see in TNG a hundred years later.
What exactly do we learn in the early seasons of TNG has happened in the
24th century? The Klingons and the Federation have maintained an uneasy
peace since the Khitomer Accords of 2293; the Romulans haven’t been heard
from since the Tomed Incident and the Treaty of Algeron of 2311; only with
the Cardassians have there been recent conflicts. But the clashes with the
Cardassians are portrayed as minor: the number of known incidents are very
few, as is the number of ships involved. Tellingly, the ships involved
appear to have mostly operated alone (Maxwell’s “Rutledge”, and
Picard’s “Stargazer”), not in combined fleets. All in all, the
Cardassian War was little more than a series of border skirmishes and
attacks on isolated outposts. This was not a major war in any way.

The conclusion is that very little fighting actually took place in the 24th
century before the Dominion War. Starfleet numbers were rather modest
throughout TNG. Compare Wolf 359 to the grand fleets we see in DS9… This
leads us to:

2 ―― You mention several times “ground soldiers for emergency
defense” / ”having any small number of soldiers” / “soldiers for
defense” / ”some soldiers for defense. Example: what if a Federation
planet is invaded?”

I think you’re right to mention ”ground soldiers for emergency
defence”, and I’m pretty sure that many (most?) Federation worlds would
have some sort of small Home Defence Army ― exactly what you write:
“any small number of soldiers” “for emergency defence”, in case for
example “a Federation planet is invaded”, or any catastrophic
emergency. But what do your own words suggest? That the Federation Home
Defence Armies probably amount more to the Kansas and Arkansas National
Guards than to the US Marine Corps. They would be, in all probability, home
defence forces; not expeditionary corps.

But AR-558 cannot be considered ”emergency defence”. AR-558 was taken
by the Federation because of the Dominion communications array there. Those
men in this episode were sent there, to hold it and defend it against
vastly superior ground troops ― the Jem’Hadar.

Now, if you want to take and secure a very specific, heavily defended enemy
position, you don’t send in the National Guard. You send in special
operations forces. And all I’m saying is that the special forces of the
24th century would be robotic. What we see in this episode is not
consistent with Federation philosophy or technology. Why? Let’s see my
next comments:

3 ―― ”It is really amusing how you think having soldiers is nonsense
for a Starfleet in war for centuries…”

As we have seen, during the 24th century prior to the Dominion War
Starfleet has only briefly been at war with the Cardassians. Nevertheless,
I don’t think having soldiers is nonsense for the Federation ― as the
emergency defence forces you suggested. But I don’t believe for a minute
that the Geordi La Forge soldiers and the Julian Bashir infantrymen of the
2360s and 2370s would volunteer to be sent to a place like AR-558 to be
butchered by Jem’Hadar. And I firmly believe that Starfleet would avoid
sending humans to a place like that in the first place, exactly to avoid
making monsters of them.

I believe that the Federation by the late 24th century quite simply
respects its citizens too much to put them in this kind of situation. No
one is expendable. And similarly, I believe that the Federation citizens by
the late 24th century quite simply wouldn’t want to participate in
warfare other than necessary emergency defence. Any serious, offensive
ground warfare would, by the late 24th century, involve remotely operated
devices, drones, and robotic forces for sure. Unless it couldn’t be
avoided, as in say, a huge invasion of Earth, Starfleet would never, I
believe, send human beings off to some far away Stalingrad ― or AR-558.
That reason alone is enough for me to call this episode lazy writing.
Let’s look at little closer at this:

4 ―― ”…but you don't think having robots is absurd in a Starfleet
where no robot has ever been seen”.

I think I know what you mean, and unfortunately, that is Star Trek’s
fault. What is absurd is sending human troops against a vastly superior
foe. We in the West wouldn’t do it today. We certainly wouldn’t be
doing it 350 years from now, in a society as ethically and technologically
advanced as the one we saw in TNG.

We must remember that TOS was a TV series with a limited budget. That is
one of the things I meant with the problems that TNG inherited from TOS.
TNG was able to slightly correct some of those limitations, much the same
way The Motion Picture altered the way the Klingons look, for example. But
Star Trek never had the kind of money necessary for showing non-sentient
robots in the series. Coming up with alien props was demanding enough;
imagine robots that could actually move. So…

5 ―― …continuing, you also ask: “Do you see any robots in Trek's
Starfleet or Federation...?”

No, I don’t. Because as I just said, TOS and TNG didn’t have the money,
and (perhaps for that reason) essentially chose to focus on humans: telling
stories about the human condition. There are a few episodes of TOS that
contemplate the artificial intelligence question, but robots are basically
never seen. Do we believe, however, that in Picard’s day there are no
robots in the Federation? I don’t. I believe that we just don’t see
them, because the stories are about other issues ― us (and the series
didn’t have the Star Wars budget needed for droids, anyway).

Now, would it make sense to see some robots in action in a war? Yes, it
would; TNG just (wisely) never showed an actual war on the ground, thus
fundamentally avoiding the whole issue.

And would it make sense, even if the Federation never had used droids in
their previous conflicts, to design some battle droids of sorts against the
superior Jem’Hadar? Yes, it would. It would have been the right thing to
do from a military perspective. And it would also have been the right thing
to do from an ethical perspective. And it could have led to much more
interesting philosophical and ethical questions. The failure of DS9 to
write such other stories, instead of giving us this WWII cliché, is
exactly that: a failure.

Now, I’m not saying that we should rewrite all Star Trek backstory in
order to field a Star Wars-like droid army. Not at all. Also, I understand
what the writers of this episode were trying to say with this particular
story. But the problem is exactly that: as Quark so aptly says, ”But take
away their creature comforts...”

This is at the core of the issue here. What Quark says is true of a great
many people today. Not all people: there are actually a few Organians
living and walking among us. But it is probably true of most people today;
look at what happened in Yugoslavia, for example.

The writers in this episode are trying to tell us that it will also be so
in the late 24th century. ES in this thread formulates it slightly
differently: ”Humans will always be humans”. I don’t agree with ES'
particular statement, but I understand Quark’s argument.

The point is, *if* Quark is right about us, *if* Quark knows it to be true,
we must assume that everybody must know this. Quark cannot possibly be the
only one with this insight into human nature.

And my complaints against this episode are all related to this. As I stated
above, the Federation respects its citizens. Starfleet does not want to
make monsters of men. And Federation citizens respect themselves. The men
themselves do not want to make monsters of themselves. We all know today of
the mental injuries suffered by soldiers in war. Quark knows it in this
episode in the 24th century. Doesn’t Starfleet Command know, and care?
They seemed to do in TNG. They don’t in DS9.

That is the major problem. Admittedly, the Dominion War is on a wholly
different order of magnitude altogether than the Cardassian Wars. But this
only makes it even more absurd to put humans in this situation, and makes
this episode even more grotesquely implausible. We are already doing
everything we can today to avoid putting our soldiers in harm’s way; in
fact, we’re doing everything we can to avoid having to send in ground
troops at all, preferring anything from satellite and aircraft
reconnaissance to air strikes, guided missiles, cruise missiles, drones,
and what not. This is what we already see today. And now the writers of
this episode are trying me make me believe that 350 years from now we would
send ground troops against vastly superior alien forces. This is totally
absurd.

I normally accept whatever Star Trek serves us as canonical ― the big
exception being VOY’s “Threshold”, which was clearly someone’s bad
dream. But the whole way DS9 chose to depict a major war is absurd. This
isn’t a 24th century Federation conflict: it’s WWII. Yes, we would
probably see some kind of “naval” battles again in the 24th century,
with huge ships attacking each other as in Midway. But no, we would not
land troops on Omaha Beach again.

Maybe Quark is right. Just maybe. Maybe 350 years isn’t enough to make
perfect Organians of all of us. Maybe *some* of us would revert to some
primitive, “blood-thirsty” condition in situations like on AR-558.
Maybe; I don’t know. But that is part of the point: by not sending human
ground troops, the Federation would eliminate the problem altogether. The
message of this episode should thus have been told in a different way
altogether, not by putting 24th century Federation troops in an unrealistic
WWII scenario. That is just absurd. That is why I call this lazy writing.

Please note that I believe also that any other species/civilization that
had undergone a technological and ethical development such as ours as seen
in TNG would also fight their wars in absentia, so to speak: with surrogate
armies, with non-sentient machines in lieu of sentient, living beings. Only
civilizations with a conspicuous warrior ethos ― such as the Klingons ―
would have any reason to still put their citizens in situations of chaos,
mayhem, destruction and despair.

I understand that TNG had neither the money nor the inclination to involve
the Federation in a major war, and wisely avoided doing so. Unfortunately,
DS9 had the inclination to show the Federation engaged in major warfare,
but didn’t have the money to do it realistically, according to the
technology and philosophy of the Federation: with robotic armies. So
instead, we get episodes like this, with WWII warfare and WWII moral
lessons. And that’s just… lazy writing.

6 ―― Finally, as you very well ask: ”But much more important than
that, do you really think that having robots in the future battlefields (or
drones today) would really solve the "blood-thirsty" moral issue Elliott
and I were talking about?”

No, not the ”blood-thirsty” issue. Not if the robots were, as you
suggest, ”commanded in a brute way”. But by removing the human grunts
from this absurd battlefield, it would force the writers to be somewhat
more imaginative in their attempt to tell us this message, and deal with
the moral issues you and Elliott were talking about. And that would
possibly make a much better, more thought-provoking story. Or at least a
less absurd one.

Please note therefore that I am not advocating a droid army episode. I just
want a story that is coherent with the values of the Federation and the
technologies of the 24th century, even if on a limited TV budget. I am
normally very aware of, and very forgiving, when it comes to budgetary
considerations, because I know Star Trek is of course limited by the value
of budgets almost as much as by the talent of the writers. I choose to see
Star Trek as parables and allegories ― Elliott’s ”myths” ― and
cannot understand the criticisms of some commenters that are wholly
budget-related. In this case, featuring a George Lucas-style droid army was
of course out of the question. Deploying human grunts, however, is absurd
bordering on insulting. If you can’t afford some robots, don’t try to
sell us a ridiculous story involving human troops; use your head, be
imaginative, figure out another way of telling the story. In TNG we had
”The Wounded”, and “The Pegasus”, for instance. In VOY we had
”Equinox”. In BSG we had another “Pegasus”, and a fantastic one at
that. There are many ways of telling similar stories.

That did not happen. Instead, we got this very banal episode, which a few
people might mistake for ”deep” and “thoughtful”, but is really
nothing that hasn’t been told dozens of times before, and much more
convincingly, because those have been more realistic, 20th century stories
with 20th century people in 20th century conflicts. As I said, this is just
lazy writing.

Anyway, thanks for your reply; I hope this now has clarified my views :)

@Corey: ""I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Humans will always be
human."

Yeah, that's why I still rape kids and own slaves. Because it was normal
and socially acceptable long ago."

-- I promise you this, Corey: if you steal any of my slaves, I'll
personally flog and then hang you, and I'll let your body hang for all to
see. That is and always will be the only way to treat a criminal who steals
other men's rightful property. [What are you saying, woman?!] Sorry, have
to go now, my woman is whining about something, have to go and smack her
and make her shut up.

@ES: "Corey, if you think that that was a well thought out comparison, then
we really don't have much to discuss."

I'm not Corey, but whether his analogy is 100% accurate or not isn't the
point. The point is that mentalities change, and given enough time, even
our most basic reactions and instincts also change. Take away our creature
comforts, and we won't behave like we did 5,000 years ago. Take away our
creature comforts, and many of us won't behave like we did 500 years ago.
If the present evolution continues, take away our creature comforts 500
years from now...

"Corey, if you think that that was a well thought out comparison, then we
really don't have much to discuss."

I think the comparison is valid.

"Take away our creature comforts, and many of us won't behave like we did
500 years ago."

Exactly. There's a reason the US military loses about 30 soldiers to
suicide a day, and that tens of thousands of troops commited suicide after
Vietnam. We even know that most soldiers in war time purposefully dont
shoot the enemy (they deliberately miss) and that most killings during wars
are done by a small majority. Often, it is simply ideology and superstition
(religious, political, economic or otherwise) which sanctions things like
mass killings, witch burnings, xenophobia and so forth, though of course
not always.

@Andy's Friend I am the one who thank you for the detailed response. This
has been a nice debate. You understood my point: I think Federation or
Starfleet having only small defense teams of ground soldiers is not exactly
a corruption of their philosophy. For localized defense. What I would only
add is that I also think it was not exactly too absurd to see some of these
guys sent to defend an important facility conquered from the enemy during
time of emergency. Like a factory of clones or something.

Again, although I dislike the concept, I just don't think it is atrocious
to previous Federation. In fact, think of it: you yourself seem to agree
that the Federation and Starfleet have to fight ground battles, have to
send someone to take important strategic points in the ground during war.
I.e. have to fight specific battles for defense purposes. Your only
disagreement is that they have sent humans. I mean, differently from
Elliott, for instance, your main problem is not the Federation fighting the
war on ground, but fighting with humans. Is more a matter of scientific
plausibility than a moral dillema.

Btw, regarding the robots, I should say two things. First, I understood
your argument abount budget constrains and I find it to be valid. Even
though, one could easily especulate that there may be also moral dilemas in
using robots for whatever task wone thinks. In fact, they already exist
even today. So I do not know if not having robots in Star Trek is merely a
budget issue or a deeper decision as well. That is an interesting question
for future debate and one we should search for when we have time. However,
in any case, I still think that since you agree that they should need
special ground forces for some very special and rare ocasions, the robots
would only displace the problem. The moral dilema for me would remain the
same. How to fight emergency ground battles, with which behavior.

But now, I totally agree that it would have been a great episode if they
had robots or something and discussed what we do with these robots. I mean,
it would have been a much cleverer episode. The issue is that it seems that
we are asking writers in the 1990s to debate issues from our current time
:)
Who knows in a future Star Trek show... I would love to see this drone
debate addressed.
In any case, if they at least have discusse in the episode what we are
discussing here, i.e. if they have showed de moral dillema faced by the
soldiers on the ground to have to do this job that does not fit their
philosphy very easily, instead of showing the brute 20th century US
mariners....

@ES and @Corey & @Andy's Friend Hahaha actually Corey brought an
amusing provocative comparison. And the ironic examples that followed were
really fun. But in a serious tone, the really juicy one was Corey's last
reply with the war examples. On average, humans behave differently today
even in wars. Yes, certainly we see a lot of crap being done in a lot of
wars. American soldiers have been doing horrible unthinkable things
throughout the world. But even though, the fact that some people can still
do the same things humanity used to 1000 years ago does not mean that on
average we still do the same from 1000 years ago.

There is a huge difference between the average, or the majority, and
individual or minority cases. I mean, if, say, 10% of humanity behave like
1000 years ago, we cannot claim that the whole species is still the same in
general, in a whole or as a tendency.

Lastly, well, if taking away confort and stuff makes people (and
institutions, what is a diferente matter, but let it be) behave like in the
Hobbesian philosophy (which we've learned here that is not a philosophy but
the ontological truth...), why the hell the Federation and Starfleet
themselves did not change during all the many wars and military crises they
have faced before and after DS9? My guess: in reality they were not humans.

I do have some quibbles from a plot standpoint so I'll get those out of the
way first:

-Has no one in the Federation heard of artillery? Or tanks? Or
bazookas/mortars/heavy weaponry? Or at least 50-caliber machine gun
emplacements (well, their phaser equivalent but you get the point)? Or air
support? As pointed out in above comments, robotic soldiers/drones or at
least robotic assistants would have come in real handy here. They could
have at least said 'All our heavy weaponry was destroyed in battle, we're
down to small arms' or something like that.
-Speaking of weapons, what happened to the spread setting on phasers that
has been around since TOS days? Not using the 'disintegrate' setting can at
least be explained by them wanting to conserve power, but given the ground
situation I would have ordered the troops to use the spread setting at
longer ranges, just to mow down as many Jem'Hadar as possible before
resorting to hand-to-hand combat, and switch to regular beam at close
range.
-Speaking of Jem'Hadar, I'd like to know how they pose such a huge threat
to the Federation based on their tactics here, which essentially boil down
to 'charge right towards armed soldiers and get shot'. Maybe they just had
a huge number advantage but it still seems like such a waste to me.
-Couldn't the Dominion just bomb the Feds from orbit? Granted they'd want
to preserve their comm array but it still bothers me.
-Bashir playing 'I'll Be Seeing You' was effective from an atmospheric
standpoint, but downright stupid from a tactical standpoint. As a soldier,
you want to be able to hear anything that might indicate how close the
enemy is and how many there are.

Don't get me wrong, I still loved this episode and this is one of my all
time favorite DS9 eps. Granted, this isn't exactly Roddenberry-ideal
territory, but it's still done very well. The atmosphere was very effective
throughout, and the characters feel much more substantial than your average
redshirt. Quark and Nog's discussion on the human condition was very
provoking (maybe because it's unlike anything we've heard in any of the
other Trek series), and it was quite a shock to see Nog lose his leg
afterward since Trek almost always goes to such lengths to keep the status
quo intact. Not so much DS9, though.

The battle was very effective from a purely visceral standpoint despite the
plot holes outlined above, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the
doubt. It's brutal to see the somewhat nice guys Vargas and Kellin get
killed while the more-than-slightly unstable Reese lives but that only more
effectively demonstrates the mindless brutality of war.

Note: Some people might ask why Sisko didn't bring down someone with more
combat experience like Kira or Worf. On Memory Alpha, it says "The writers
specifically chose Nog, Ezri, Quark, and Bashir as the central characters
for this episode because they had the least fighting experience. Characters
like Kira, Worf, and O'Brien were purposely left out of the fighting, as
they all had combat experience and knew how to handle themselves in such a
situation. The writers, however, were more keen on seeing the reactions of
people who didn't know how to handle themselves."
In that sense, I guess it was effective, but I would have liked to see Worf
or Kira join the party to be sort of a mentor to the others. It would have
been a nice move IMO.

Anyone notice how brainwashed Nog is? This kid eats, breathes, and shits
Starfleet. He's the kind of guy who'd think a fun night of relaxing
involves going over the latest Starfleet regulations. As Vic Fontaine would
put it, he's a square. I was literally whooping for joy when he got shot.
Take that you little bastard!!

Seriously though, his uncle comes up on the bridge to see him and what does
he do? Blow him off and then apologize to the captain for his uncle. I'd be
ashamed of a family member for treating me like that, even if you were on
duty.

Nog doesn't deserve to be anywhere near the bridge and frankly, he doesn't
deserve to be on the show.

A gruelling and effective episode, well directed, does not try to do too
much and only veers into cliches occasionally, seems to be DS9s version of
Platoon, but it all worked well enough for me, albeit has been done better
in other places. Again - the musical score really helped.

BRAVESTARR, I completely agree with you. I hate nog. Quark was obviously
scared and nog treats him like crap. Someone should tell him that being
loyal to your family is also important in life. At one point he says
ferengi just run and hide. On tng the ferengi have a military and don't run
and hide. Nog seems to know nothing about his people except when the
writers want him to be good at finding things. He treats Jake the same way
in a few episodes. Like that episode where nog is fooled into joining a
crew of kids and jake points out that the captain is crazy. Nog goes off
about how jake could never understand what it means go be a soldier and of
course jake is proven correct. I don't understand the nog love from ds9
fans. He's an ass

Responding to an old comment but it bugs me a little. Elliot stating the
Federation shouldn't be very good soldiers.
They've had their share of wars to deal with and knowing that you don't
send starships out into the unknown with people who don't know one end of a
phaser from another.
Picard and many others love a bit of target practise with their phasers.
The whole federation seems trained in some kick arse mixed martial arts
that utilises the double hand blow to the extreme. War games, battle
simulations, pugil stick battles etc, etc, etc. This is the behaviour of a
people that come in peace but will kick your arse if you get all up in
their grill.

Minor yes but none the less important enough for Picard to agree to the
excerise to 'hone their skills' in light of the Borg threat.

These starfleets officers have been honing their skills for months in
appalling conditions. Whilst I agree, as said previously, some of the
characters are a little ott or chilched, I don't think it is unreasonable
for the groups skills to develop over time or that they would have a decent
skillset to begin with. If they were crap they'd be long dead.
Every space battle would have been over in seconds and the Federation would
have long been overun by hostile forces. They'd never even got as far as
the Dominion, the Klingon's would have eaten them years before.

A peace keeping organisation still needs to know how to defend itself. So
yes it is a minor province of the make up of Starfleet officer. That
doesn't mean it isn't something they don't give their best too. As
displayed with Riker's performance in that episode.

Hmm, I see your point. But, I don't object to the officers developing
skills (they are the best of the best after all), more to the psychological
endurance they exhibit. Soldiers nowadays go through intensive
psychological training and preparation and STILL develop PTSD after tours
as short as only a few months. Starfleet officers, whose military training,
no matter how expert, is only a fraction of their overall skill-sets,
should be traumatised to the point of utter dysfunction. It isn't a
question of possessing tactics, weaponry or combat expertise, it's having
the *mind* of a hardened soldier which I object to. If the writers really
wanted to comment on Roddenberry's prediction of human evolution, this
would have been a great place to show how humanity essentially traded in
its wartime survivalism (for better AND worse, in this case) for a more
evolved sensibility. If could have shown that there is indeed a price to
pay for this evolution, but instead, again, we have 20th-century humans
with phasers and warp drive.

Elliott, not all Starfleet officers are scientists. There are engineers,
doctors, tactical officers, and yes, security officers whose sole job is to
keep people safe with military training. The Starfleet officers in this
battle are mostly of those later variety, security officers. That is why
they joined Starfleet, what they are trained to do. To fight and defend.
However, we do see other officers: engineers who are scared and ineffectual
at fighting. They aren't trained as well in combat and so aren't prepared
for it when it happens. As you say they should be.

Starfleet is a sort of NASA/Military hybrid. It is primarily a scientific
exploration organization, but it also functions as a military. Notice that
this is not the first time Starfleet has fought a war. And this is not the
last. They've fought Romulans in the 22nd century, Klingons on and off for
hundreds of years, and the Borg several times including the infamous Wolf
359. Starfleet is not ineffectual in its military duties. Yes, it is more
of a science organization, but that doesn't mean it's a slouch on military.

@Sean: as I said before, the issue I take is with the psychological
endurance in this extreme circumstance. We have every indication that the
Dominion War is more of a drain on Starfleet's resources than either the
Klingon or Cardassian Wars. The whole premise of this episode relies on the
idea that Starfleet is at unprecedented levels of desperation (thus why
replacement personnel had not arrived in so long).

Humans are no slouches when it comes to psychological endurance. Especially
if they're trained to fight. Soldiers in extreme circumstances are quite
capable when they need to be. And, of course, non-humans as well. Although
most of the people in this episode are human. They could have done with a
Vulcan in this episode, that's for sure.

We didn't start the "war" with the Borg, but we fought it. The ever proper
Picard lost it in the battle process as well. If it weren't for Lilly, he
might have just lost the battle in FC. Hell, Picard was going to infect
Hugh and commit genocide until he heard him say "I".

We didn't start the war in DS9 either. Does anyone for a moment think the
Founders could have been talked out of imposing order on the Alpha
Quadrant?

DS9 showed us how humans react to war in the 24th century. And the simple
fact is, we all will do anything to protect what is ours, and our families.
So episodes like ITPM are realistic. All Star Trek incarnations did this.
Kirk attacked a Romulan war bird to protect our posts and prevent a war.
Picard attacked the Borg, Janeway battled the Borg and Archer Battled the
Xindi. The difference is DS9 actually had to deal with a war.

This episode, in the universe that has Jem'Hadar and Klingons as ground
soldiers required the Federation to respond in kind. I personally do not
think ground soldiers would ever be necessary in the 24th century where
star ships are commonplace, but that's not the setting we were given. So
this episode is pertinent and situations like this could happen.

While Star Trek is not dystopian, it's not utopian either aside from
Earth.

"QUARK: Maybe, but I still don't want you anywhere near them. Let me tell
you something about humans, nephew. They're a wonderful, friendly people as
long as their bellies are full and their holosuites are working. But take
away their creature comforts, deprive them of food, sleep, sonic showers,
put their lives in jeopardy over an extended period of time, and those same
friendly, intelligent, wonderful people will become as nasty and as violent
as the most bloodthirsty Klingon. You don't believe me? Look at those
faces. Look in their eyes. You know I'm right, don't you? Well? Aren't you
going to say something?"

So, why do we get Quark in this episode and why do we get him saying stuff
like this? I think he brings some more realism to this episode. It's not
only a statement to Nog to make him maybe open his eyes to what it REALLY
means to be a soldier and what by default you may be transformed, but it's
a statement to us to bring the soldier/ground troops segment of the war
front and center.

This episode aptly depicts war/battle worn/hardened soldiers that have been
"on the lines" too long. This makes me think of WWII and the Battle of the
Bulge. US soldiers served in the front lines without relief for longer than
5 months to include horrid winter conditions.

It's not so much about the battle as it is about the people in those
situations and the decisions they are forced to make. The landscape
provides the stage for the impending battle. You can say that’s
convenient, but think about it. If it had been any different the
Jem’Hadar would have retaken the comm array long ago. They always win the
numbers game. It probably makes sense that the comm array is located where
it is. It’s an easier position to defend.

There were a couple “tough choices” in this one. First, Sisko’s
choice to remain was a huge one. That took some serious guts and was the
right choice. They needed numbers. Plain and simple. Even adding
inexperienced Star Fleet personnel (not ground troops) was better than
leaving these soldiers with an unwinnable task. The presence of
“Houdini’s” posed the other. The "Houdini’s" were immoral when they
were used by the Jem'Hadar, but once they were figured out they had no
choice but to use them to survive. Obviously it had to be done, but it was
still a revealing choice to make. War isn’t about the easy choices,
it’s about the hard ones. I commend Sisko for making both of these hard
decisions.

Nog ends up losing a leg and despite Quark’s constant input, what does he
do? He apologizes to his Captain for not getting the job done and takes
responsibility for the death of Larkin. Say what you want about Nog, but
don’t you dare pigeonhole him as soft, undedicated or unmotivated. I’m
very impressed with him. The only thing he lacks is experience. The kid has
heart.

I’ll nit-pic this one issue: The Jem’Hadar sending in holograms
doesn’t seem realistic. The terrain already forced the conflict to a
small area. I don’t think this stunt would have revealed anything anyone
with half a brain couldn’t have deduced.

“Hold” is the order. Not like any battle our heroes have sustained or
fought before in the series. No chance to fight then retreat, no chance to
just outsmart your opponent, no chance to out maneuver them. No shades of
grey. Hold, or die.

So the battle ensues…. First the Houdini’s do their part (which was
pretty damned eerie) then they fight them off from a distance, then in
close hand to hand combat. Of course, we lose SF personnel we just met and
our heroes win the day. But this wasn’t just a bunch of ships plowing
through other ships, these were people fighting and dying. PEOPLE. I’ve
always wondered what the Jem’Hadar loss numbers were. Cannon fodder comes
to mind. Even Quark has to gun one Jem’Hadar down.

This episode does everything it needs to do. I got the feeling what I was
watching was real. It meant something. That doesn’t happen too often in
any series, not just Trek or DS9.

“Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the
spirit of men who follow and of the man who leads that gains the
victory.” George S. Patton

This is where ST really started to tank...
The same pro-military, anti-trek issues dogging this ep as did on much of
ENT.
Nog has been completely brainwashed by military dogma. And everyone is ok
with it? (Except Quark to some extension)
Did he have his mind completely wiped by some wicked starfleet computer
system? He doesn't even act like a ferengi anymore at all, more the
opposite. The character is so changed now the ferengi makeup has become an
annoyance. Parrallel to the real world as of now, Starfleet has made Nog
the perfect suicidebomber/kamikazepilot/nazi soldier. But hey, in the new
Trek, military brainwashing is fine!

You made very interesting points. While I don't necessarily agree with all
of them; they were still well made and thought-provoking.

However, there is one thing you said which is completely incorrect.

"Money, for an ever-increasing part of the population in the most advanced
countries in the world, isn’t really important anymore."

Yeah, about that. Unless you are talking about the extremely-small
percentage that is "super-rich;" money is still the most important thing
concerning modern life. The huge percentage that is poor are quite
obviously heavily concerned with it. The dying middle class is either
concerned to not become poor or hastening their own demise with reckless
spending. Even the upper-class rich still obsess over money because they
know they can lose it easily; not to mention creating an inheritance.

I don't know one person that has given up a well-paying job for
"self-improvement" and not regretted it to their core. Money is still the
core of our society and will continue to be until we overcome our
limitation of resources.

I respect your opinions but this part reads more like a teenager's concept
of the "adult world."

@M.O.: Thank you very much for your reply. Your comment deserves further
explanation, I think. So here we go:

First of all, I think it important to bear in mind our own cultural
context. I’m a Southern European, today living in Scandinavia. However, I
have also lived in India. Furthermore, I am a historian, and particularly
interested in “longue durée” issues ― analyses across decades and
centuries. All this of course colours my perception of the world. And
because of all this, I have a very good grasp, for instance, of the various
speeds at which our societies and mentalities are developing in various
different parts of the world.

Now, please read the full paragraph, and read it in context. I was
describing how Western mentalities have developed in the course of the past
350 years, and extrapolating to another 350 years in the future. I
described social issues such as crime and punishment, gender issues, race,
sexuality, and so on. The trend is undeniable.

I then touched upon the issue of money.

Here’s the paragraph again, this time with asterisks to emphasise what
you should consider:

“Today we *more and more often* see people giving up perfectly good ―
and well-paid ― ”respectable” jobs to embark on quests of
”self-realization”, usually involving some sort of artistic expression
or spiritual journey. Money, *for an ever-increasing* part of the
population *in the most advanced countries in the world*, isn’t really
important anymore. Improving oneself is. *The seeds of TNG are already
here: it’s already happening.*”

I fail to see how you can dispute any of this.

I am not saying that people in the Western world don’t care about money
anymore. I am saying that *more and more people* in the most socially
advanced societies on Earth ― places like Scandinavia, the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria, & Switzerland, the social avantgarde of the world, or
the future of tomorrow, if you will ― are realizing that money isn’t
all that important.

As little as 60-80 years ago, to give another “longue durée” case,
your average, European middle class familiy would seriously consider any
significant expenditure before spending their hard-earned money. And what
might such significant expenditures be? A new suit, or a new dress, or a
new pair of shoes. The very fundamental things, which were of a higher
quality then than they are today, and much more expensive, in relative
terms. This is not no mention serious expenditure such as say, a new dining
set of table and chairs for the dining room.

Today, every middle-class and lower middle-class family in the Western
world spends money on things that 60-80 years ago would be considered
excessive if not extreme self-indulgence ― and quite often considerable
sums at that.

60-80 years ago, the question was thus *whether* and *when* to buy a new
pair of shoes, and whether buying a new surcoat for the winter was really
necessary. Today, the question is *which* and *how many* gadgets to buy.

What I am thus trying to illustrate is that money isn’t really that
important anymore: many more people than ever previously take it for
granted, and many more people than ever before spend it without thinking
twice. We haven’t come to a replicator society yet, but we’re
definitely closer than we were at the beginning of the 20th century.

And in the most developed societies on Earth, people have begun to realize
that earning more money is less important than spending your time with your
family and friends and doing the things you enjoy in life. More and more
people I know decline a promotion, for instance, because the salary
increase quite simply isn’t worth the extra time you’ll have to deduct
from the activities that truly matter to you. These people don’t strive
to earn more money to buy bigger cars and TVs, they strive to spend more
time doing what they enjoy.

Similarly, more and more people agree to less hours of work and a salary
decrease in order to be able to spend more time doing just that ― what
they enjoy in life besides their work.

All this would be unimaginable as recently as 60-80 years ago, when money
was a more important driving factor in society than it is today.

@Andy's Friend - "Today, every middle-class and lower middle-class family
in the Western world spends money on things that 60-80 years ago would be
considered excessive if not extreme self-indulgence ― and quite often
considerable sums at that."

To offer a counterpoint. Luxury has gotten cheaper but necessity has gotten
more expensive. Lower middle class people can often afford luxury items but
a 3 bedroom house in a decent area and healthy foods on a regular basis are
unaffordable. But that smart phone and flat screen are cheaper than ever.
::shrug::

We can't truly be approaching TNG levels of post scarcity when we can't
afford the luxurious retirements, size of houses and quality of food that
our grandparents had (whilst feeding 3x the number of children).

And our cheap gadgets, coats and shoes will run out when China decides that
sweat shops are bad.

Think about it like this, if we paid the Chinese workers who built your
gadgets what the minimum wage in Scandinavia is your historian salary would
be lucky to be able to buy a calculator, let alone a smart phone. The cheap
luxury goods thing you site is a false reality and the floor can come
crashing down from under us at any time.

@Robert: Sorry, Robert, but that is simply not true. Our grandparents spent
far larger sums on the very necessities of life than we do today. Please
investigate relative costs compared to income. This can actually still be
seen today: Southern Europeans for instance spend a *far* larger amount of
their income on fixed expenditure - rent, mortgages, utilities, food, etc.
- than Northern Europeans, who have a far higher real income; that's why
many in Northern Europe can afford say, holidays overseas three times a
year, which very few in Southern Europe can. But as a whole, the Western
middle class has a *much higher* purchasing power today than it had a
hundred years ago. Although I agree with your "quality of food" argument:
there's no denying that a hundred years ago, foodstuffs were of a higher
quality than today's mass-produced, semi-synthetic swill. They contained
higher levels of natural toxins, but that's nothing a proper handling of
the ingredients won't take care of. Today, you have to go to the
countryside, or pay premium prices in specialist stores in the urban
centres, to buy the real thing. But I have a feeling that that is about to
change as well. Again, here in Scandinavia people have begun spending less
on gadgets and appliances and more on premium foodstuffs as a percentage of
income, simply to get a richer experience in life - while in Southern
Europe people still have to spend ridiculous percentages of their income on
everyday, low-quality supermarket food products. Some places are just
closer to the post-scarcity world of Trek than others. May I ask where you
live, by the way? It's always nice to talk to people around the world; I
actually think people should mention where they're from, because sometimes
it helps to explain our very different outlooks. Living in Scandinavia, I
see nothing outlandish at all in the "Utopian" TNG universe, for instance:
it's the natural evolution of what's happening here.

@Robert: I didn't read your last comment, as I was answering you. So here's
my reply to that :)

The truth is that the main reason for the depth of the economic crisis in
Southern Europe these days (apart from absolute inepcy by their various
governments for decades) is exactly because hundreds of millions in
developing countries have begun to close in our Western living standards.
Of course this has its price; however, it won't be Scandinavia who will pay
it, as these countries have the most educated and flexible workforces and
labour systems in the world; there will always be room for investments
here.

Nay, the ones paying the price are essentially, and very severely so, the
Southern Europeans, who are stuck in the middle: their workforce isn't
qualified enough, but is too expensive compared to many others around the
developing world. So we're witnessing, and will continue to do so for
several decades, a gradual levelling in the world. Nothing odd about that;
and because it's gradual, systems will eventually adapt. In Northern
Europe, we're witnessing a gradual but fundamental change to a wholly
tertiary sector- oriented economy: the highly skilled Northern European
worker loses his job to two Southern or Eastern Europeans, and then one of
these loses his job to five Chinese - and then these get a salary raise and
motivate further investment in Northern Europe (and elsewhere). Recently,
Chinese Suzlon placed their wind energy laboratories in Scandinavia - quite
simply because this is where the cutting edge knowledge in the field is.
And this is how Europe and North America must compete in the future; we
can't compete on salaries.

It's a gradual process, but eventually things will level. I'm not worried
at all for my salary; it's more the unskilled Southern Europeans or
Americans with four kids I feel sorry for. But then again, if their not
being able to afford shiny fancy gadgets means more chinese families can
have a decent standard of living, I can't say I truly feel sorry for them
either. But this is a rather difficult debate, because there is of course a
difference between not being able to buy shiny gadgets to your kids and not
being able to buy them food at the end of the month. I suggest we go back
to discussing Trek :)

Your "false reality" argument is not to be ignored, but you missed
something crucial here; the actual cost of producing an iphone or similar
gadget is much lower than the retail price would suggest. Thus, while we
certainly have to stop taking advantage of cheap (and especially slave)
labour, if we both paid those workers a decent salary *and* stopped paying
the cats at the top of the food chain exorbitant and undeserved salaries,
the net result would be a society which most closely resembles what
AndysFriend is describing goes on in Scandinavia. Here in America (and
especially here in San Francisco where nearby Silicon Valley is the Ur of
most said gadgets), the tech-folk and business elite live very much like
the average Northern European middle class family because the US' economic
model is so outdated, purchasing power depends on extreme economic
disparity. But like in most things, this is no longer the 20th century and
the US is no longer the trend-setter. I just hope we catch up soon.

Interesting arguments you both make! And Andy's Friend, I wasn't so much
concerned with your salary, but merely worried for a world in which all
human lives (including those in developing countries making all this stuff)
are treated with the dignity that people where you live are treated. I've
been to Scandinavia, those people are well served by their governments...
at least that is my perception.

I live in NYC, and I assure you I paid more for my crappier house than my
grandparents paid for theirs, even factoring in inflation. And it took me 2
salaries to do it instead of 1... as such I also pay obscene amounts for
childcare.

Over here there are people that overdo on the luxuries, but from where I
sit even cutting out on luxuries would not make day to day costs any
better. It's my perception that this is generally true in large US cities,
though it may only be where I sit!

As to going back to Trek, I will end with... I hope you're right, because
Gene's vision is a place I'd like to live someday.

My only nitpick is one of scale:
1) If it's so valuable, why didn't the Jem'Hadar blow it up (just like any
other asset that's in enemy hands)? Preferably from orbit.
2) It's the most valuable real estate in the sector (what, several solar
systems?) and Star Fleet can only defend it with a lousy PLATOON? And with
no air support, armor, etc? Even today's 3rd world country would put
together a better defense than that.
3) The casuality list: Kira says it's got 1730 names on it. At the height
of WWII, Germany was loosing a MILLION men a year; or 20,000 a week.
Presumably Star Fleet -- at least during a war -- is a lot bigger than the
Wehrmacht. 1730 is extremely light casualties for a war you're loosing.
The whole war seems like a minor border skirmish rather than a threat to
the whole Federation.

Maybe DS9 does have the Roddenberry ideal, and we've "evolved" beyond the
ability to defend ourselves ;-)

In TOS - A Taste of Armageddon, Kirk gives General Order 24 to Scotty -- to
destroy all life on the planet. Seems pretty barbaric, even by 20th
century standards. While TOS shows a greatly improved society overall,
Starfleet clearly had a strong military component -- here's a General Order
for planetary annihiliation that can be given by a starship captain -- and
a starship equipped to do it.

Did TNG have this? Don't know. Someone above argued for widespread robots
on the grounds "the fact that we didn't see robots doesn't prove they don't
exist". Much the same could be said for the military arm of Starfleet --
you really can't argue "If it didn't appear on TNG, it wasn't common in the
Federation." Did we ever see an episode focused on a planet where the Borg
landed drones to assimilate a large population?
We know OBrien was a hero of Setlik III, so there's at least ground (human)
troops there.

Reading the comments in this thread reminds me why so many Trek species
come from Planets of Hats. Humans who lose sight of their values while
trapped on a war-torn moon? A Ferengi who isn't greedy for profit? A
Jem'Hadar who isn't completely loyal to the Changelings? A Cardassian who
opposed the Bajoran occupation? A vedek who doesn't believe in grabbing
earlobes?

It's almost as if DS9 has been suggesting since day one that a population
is made up of individuals and not pieces of a one-note hive mind.

Snark aside, this is a fantastic Dominion war episode - maybe the best the
show has ever done. Also, like Jammer said, the hidden star may be Quark.
He works so well because of how much we've seen of his values to this
point. Could any parent (or uncle in this case) watch their child casually
go to battle like this without saying what Quark said? I really, really
love the scene with Quark watching over Nog and then shooting that
Jem'Hadar. Nog would have died if he was alone, but he never would be alone
as long as his uncle was there. Also, notice how Quark doesn't even mention
whatever purpose Zek gave him. Awesome Quark story here, of all things.
Shimerman plays the hell out of it.

As others have more eloquently and extensively discussed above, this
episodes strains credibility of upholding to the Trek ethos in so many
ways. The subspace mines were novel, but utterly pointless as a weapon of
war - perhaps suited for terrorism purposes?

Of course, we have all grown to accept with Trek (and indeed with any
sci-fi), its a product of its time. This episode was written before the
advent of the War on Terror, before drones, before massive surveillance
technologies were widely understood in the public consciousness. Indeed,
many aspects of our current society make Trek's so called utopia seem down
right quaint! Surely, if this episode were written today, the ground battle
would have been fought by robots, lasted a mere few minutes (probably
occurring off camera and mentioned only in passing), and absent of any
individual human heroics. Lets face it, autonomous robots are so efficient
they're boring. It's much more dramatic to watch grunts sweat and bleed and
taking potshots at each other with manual aiming laser rifles. ;)

And in the most developed societies on Earth, people have begun to realize
that earning more money is less important than spending your time with your
family and friends and doing the things you enjoy in life. More and more
people I know decline a promotion, for instance, because the salary
increase quite simply isn’t worth the extra time you’ll have to deduct
from the activities that truly matter to you. These people don’t strive
to earn more money to buy bigger cars and TVs, they strive to spend more
time doing what they enjoy.
----

I am reminded of TOS The Cloud Minders...which is far from the utopia
striven for by the Federation. Much of Scandinavia economy is hitting the
ropes, including wealthy Norway whose welfare model is running up against
falling oil prices and declining reserves. ---and lets not even mention the
contentious issue of immigration. Indeed, most of the EU could end up in
full blown deflation.

The world is well on its way toward ten billion people, most of whom will
continue to struggle and scramble to achieve what they see is their fair
share. The world is indeed richer, but more unequal than ever.

I myself am part Norwegian, but mostly Canadian; Currently living in Egypt
(a heavily populated developing country of 90 million, 40% of whom live on
$2 a day or less).

The optimist in me says, if we can just get off this rock, Star trek utopia
may just be within reach. Long live and prosper.

I found this episode powerful and compelling. I don't agree with those
saying that we didn't need to be shown all that.
Why not? This is DS9, this is life.
That is why DS9 is so different than the other Star Trek series and why
many of us love it so much.

@WCrusher: "This is where ST really started to tank...
The same pro-military, anti-trek issues dogging this ep as did on much of
ENT. Nog has been completely brainwashed by military dogma. And everyone is
ok with it?"

This episode doesn't strike me as pro or anti-military.

To whatever degree you believe (like Quark) that the Federation never
should've gotten involved in this war, the fact is they are in the middle
of a war. Wars involve soldiers. And as Star Trek episodes go, this
episode comes the closest to capturing both the dark brutal reality of what
soldiers are asked to do and the costs they must pay (physically and
mentally).

What bothers me the most about Star Trek is the hidden antiseptic way that
skirmishes, battles, and even entire wars are fought. Wars are fought
safely off-screen by faceless soldiers/victims that are never shown and
whom we never care about. When battles are fought by the Enterprise or
Defiant or whatever other Starfleet ship is involved almost always win.
Entire colonies might be destroyed, entire fleets might be wiped out, but
all the people we care about always survive. Even when Spock dies at the
end of Wrath of Khan, Kirk risks his career and life to get his best friend
back (no such sacrifice is attempted for any of the other trainees killed
in that battle though).

Heck, the entire joke about the "Red Shirts" in Star Trek revolves around
the idea that somebody has to die to make the plot remotely believable or
dangerous, but never anybody we know or care about. Dozens of Red Shirts
die forgettably or unheralded in conflicts while the main characters
chuckle and make wisecracks

To me, this too conveniently parallels how wars are fought in our
present-day world. Battles go on every day, but they are fought on what
might as well be a foreign planet by nameless faceless "Red Shirt" soldiers
whose stories we will never hear or care about because they don't directly
affect us. Oh sure, many of us do empathize and even respect the
sacrifices they make in a general human way, but since it's not us or
people we have a direct connection to, it's not the same. It's why 1730
people are killed in one light week, yet DS9 fans only get worked up over
the death of one Jadzia and the injury to one Nog.

For my money, this is the episode among all others that brings the plight
of the Red Shirt (and to a certain extent, our own military) into better
perspective. War is not pretty. It isn't always fought by balding
Shakespearean actors in a plush command center ordering someone to press a
button which fires an energy beam which instantly/painlessly kills a
thousand people. Victims (on both sides) are not just plot devices
involving nameless characters that nobody directly cares about.

In the TOS episode "Arena," over 500 Federation Colonists are killed by the
Gorn, along with several Enterprise Red Shirts....and all anyone can talk
about is the cheesy costume worn by the actor portraying the Gorn. 500+
Federation citizens died in the conflict of an episode has become
quintessential part of Star Trek lore as mostly a joke. DS9 shows an
episode where maybe a dozen officers get killed in conflict in addition to
the 107 killed prior to the beginning of the episode, and this is supposed
to be the poster child for this series being anti-Trek/anti-Roddenberry.
The only difference between the two episodes (aside from the 400 fewer
characters killed at AR-558) is that one episode showed the brutality and
attempted to make you feel pain for the victims and the survivors, while
the other sloughed off the widespread death and destruction as a
forgettable afterthought.

If Star Trek's "Utopian" vision is simply defined by ignoring or not caring
about the horrors of the world/galaxy, then that's not a universe I wish to
ever live in.

Some excerpts From Memory Alpha that I think address some of the criticisms
posted here:

-According to Ira Steven Behr, "I felt that we needed to do it. War sucks.
War is intolerable. War is painful, and good people die. You win, but you
still lose. And we needed to show that as uncompromisingly as possible. War
isn't just exploding ships and special effects."

-The writers specifically chose Nog, Ezri, Quark, and Bashir as the central
characters for this episode because they had the least fighting experience.
Characters like Kira, Worf, and O'Brien were purposely left out of the
fighting, as they all had combat experience and knew how to handle
themselves in such a situation. The writers, however, were more keen on
seeing the reactions of people who didn't know how to handle themselves.

-Director Winrich Kolbe had fought in the Vietnam War, and he allowed his
knowledge of combat to influence his direction of the episode; "The images
you see are trenches of churned-up dirt. The battleground always looked
like there was absolutely nothing there that anyone could ever want. Yet
people were blowing each other to smithereens over this land. I wanted
AR-558 to be that type of battleground, a totally nondescript piece of real
estate that didn't deserve one drop of blood to be shed for it. It
shouldn't say anything to the eye or the mind except that we were there
because somebody had decided to put a relay station on this rock." Kolbe
goes on to say, "We wanted the siege scene in "AR-558" to convey the
psychological impact, and not come across like a shoot-em-up. What I
remember from Vietnam is sitting in a ditch somewhere and waiting. It's the
waiting that drives you nuts. You know they're coming. You can hear them.
You can feel them. When you have to wait, your mind plays tricks on you,
and you hear things and you see things, like Vargas, who's about to
explode. Once the battle starts, your adrenaline kicks in and you have an
objective. But when you have to wait, time just slows down to a crawl."
Kolbe felt that the battle for AR-558 had a great deal of similarity with
the 1968 Battle of Khe Sanh, a battle which was won by the Americans, but
the strategic significance of which is still debated to this day.